Baker, K. v. Hayes-Baker, C.
96 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Parties divorced by decree entered January 30, 2002: wife (Hayes-Baker) awarded marital residence and 401(k); husband (Baker) awarded 40% marital share of wife's Aetna Incentive Savings Plan, stated as $2,705.00.
- Baker was incarcerated when the decree issued; he later filed enforcement actions starting in 2005 and again in 2015.
- Long period of dormancy in enforcement activity (roughly 2006–2015).
- At the 2015 enforcement hearing wife testified the 401(k) balance was about $4,900, she intended to use funds for the parties’ daughter’s education, and a lump withdrawal would trigger taxes and penalties.
- Trial court ordered wife to pay Baker $100 per month until the $2,705.00 was satisfied; court declined to award additional interest or require lump‑sum payment or wage garnishment.
- Baker appealed pro se, arguing the court should have required immediate payment or garnishment and awarded interest/sanctions; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baker) | Defendant's Argument (Hayes‑Baker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court must require lump‑sum payment of $2,705 from wife | Baker: payment long overdue (14 years); wife can afford full payment; monthly installments are unreasonable | Hayes‑Baker: lump withdrawal would incur taxes/penalties; funds intended for daughter’s education; changed circumstances and long delay | Court: affirmed discretion to order monthly $100 payments, balancing equities and avoiding tax/penalty hardship |
| Whether court should garnish wife’s wages or otherwise enforce by seizure | Baker: garnishment appropriate to guarantee payment and enforce decree | Hayes‑Baker: not argued explicitly at appellate stage; court weighed proportionality and equities against harsh enforcement | Court: garnishment not required; remedies are discretionary and monthly payments were proportionate |
| Whether additional interest or sanctions are owed beyond the $2,705 figure | Baker: seeks interest and unspecified sanctions for nonpayment | Hayes‑Baker: court interpreted decree as awarding $2,705 inclusive of the stated 6% interest; further interest or sanctions would be inequitable | Court: no additional interest or sanctions awarded; $2,705 treated as the fixed judgment amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Childress v. Bogosian, 12 A.3d 448 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court’s credibility and factual findings in family law matters are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Schenk v. Schenk, 880 A.2d 633 (Pa. Super. 2005) (equitable distribution analyzed to effectuate economic justice between parties)
- Prol v. Prol, 935 A.2d 547 (Pa. Super. 2007) (petition for special relief in divorce actions reviewed for abuse of discretion; sanctions must be proportionate)